familypediawikiaorg-20200214-history
Familypedia:Requests for adminship/Archive
:The following discussions are preserved as archives of nominations for adminship/bureaucratship. Please do not edit this content. ---- Jtc I believe admin rights should be given to our most prolific current contributor, User:Jtc, if only to make his spam-rollback process easier. Robin Patterson 00:40, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Hmmm. I guess this is a very necessary next step; having more admins. Could have some discussion of this user, please? :User:IFaqeer—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:26, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::Maybe one of us frightened him away? See his contributions ---- Robin Patterson I'd also like users to discuss Robin Patterson as a possible Admin. User:IFaqeer—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:26, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Accepting nomination. Robin Patterson 00:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) ---- Yewenyi Anyone who has contributed over 90% of the content should be an admin if he or she would like to be. Being Australian is no disadvantage; in fact it gives a better coverage of the 24-hour period in the fight against spam. Robin Patterson 00:30, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) I consent to be an administrator. Yewenyi 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) ---- WMWillis ''Consent: ''Bill 12:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Supporters *Robin Patterson 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC) *Linda 237-2 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Duwilly 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC) *Cowantex 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Neutral Opposed Done ---- Nhprman Currently the most active contributor. Stephen would be able to deal with vandalism much more easily if he was made a sysop. Robin Patterson 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC) *I consent to the nomination. Thank you. Nhprman 05:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC) :Did this ever happen? In "Special pages" I don't see admin links, as I should if I was an admin. - Nhprman 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC) ::Done now. ---- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) * I have been here since November of 2006. Its about time we had our own space. I used to post to findagrave, but they have been deleting images I added by the hundreds and I began searching for a more archival repository for my data. *Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer (1815-1866) here is the start of my entries * I have a subscription to the New York Times archive and to ancestry.com Supporting *Robin Patterson 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) (wondering which of the admins' powers you particularly want!) *08:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Neutral Generally speaking, I'm going to support whatever Robin wishes to do on something like this. I'd like to think that we are beyond the point of resisting offers to help for no apparent reason. I'll note that Richard didn't actually say he wanted to be a SysOp, but I presume that is his desire since he inserted an entry in this location. Its good to have more folks actively working the Wiki. Like Robin, I'm curious to know why Richard wants to be a SysOp; there are some advantages, but not many. It is, ultimately, a service function. Bill 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC) *: I would perform some of the system drudgery, like clearing space for moves. Thats the first problem I encountered. Take advantage of the time I can devote. Opposing OK A week is long enough on this wiki these days! One and a bit votes in favour (plus the nominee's) and none against. Robin Patterson 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) ---- User:Phlox I personally don't think there should be a lot of sysops, and I don't think of it as a badge or being in the club. As far as I'm concerned, it mostly means more work and responsibilities. Ok, you've got a flag on your account that lets you delete vandal pages, you have to figure out whether someone knows what they are doing before you unlock a template used by a thousand pages, and oh boy- you get to edit esoteric pages like Common.css. I needed sysop options like I need a hole in the head. That is, until recently. Here are the problems that I can address with the sysop flag: *Can deal with the sluggish improvement of infrastructure- There are a bunch of extensions that we need to have enabled, and that isn't getting done. In the Watercooler Forum, I put in a request for the googlemaps extension 2 weeks ago, everyone agrees we should have it, but though it was promised that it would be "looked into", we still don't have it. I would deal with such requests very promptly. *Style sheet debugging is difficult if I cannot edit Common.css. My first request was very simple (requesting a simple copy to Common.css) took 2 or 3 weeks to get performed. Some things work only if in Common.CSS, othertimes only if it they are in the global monobook.css. It's spooky, but a fact of life. We need someone with Sysop access that understands this esoteric subject. I think I understand it more than anyone on this wikia. *Similar need concerns javascript. This will very likely be used to address the issue of making things as simple as possible for newcomers, and access to common.js and monobook.js is essential. *Bot tasks. It's necessary to protect pages like lists of files proposed for deletion from vandals. Someone has to unlock these when they are open to everyone to edit, and locked when the list is finalized prior to a bot run. *Richard Norton, Bill and Robin do a lot of work but can't be everywhere. The home page is locked- the fourth day that the home page is broken. I see a locked template that needs fixing and a day goes by before I can fix it because Robin doesn't get here until the evening. By the time he gets back to me I forget what needed fixing. I have watched vandalization occuring, but was powerless to stop it. Fortunately, a staff member enabled DanTman temporary sysop powers to deal with it, but this is a load on wikia adminstration that was suffered only because we didn't have enough trusted contributors on hand that could deal with it. This is the 4th day the home page has been broken. Would Robin have fixed it immediately they were notified on the first day? You bet- probably on same day. But Robin is the only sysop that stops by daily and he has duties on a lot of other sites to deal with these trivial chores. Clearly we don't have enough sysop eyes watching genealogy. Qualifications: *I am a long time heavy contributor to Commons, am intimately aware of wiki culture and practices, and besides active participation in community service activities like Category Maintenance and CopyViolation identification, have also written guidelines, one of which is being considered a Commons Policy (Category naming for places). *Respected heavy contributor to other wikia such as Psychology. *Heavy contributor to Genealogy, including researched genealogy articles, active participation in development of the infrastructure and advocacy of practices that will help our wikia grow. (5,200 manual edits in 3 months of participation, 14,300 Bot edits on genealogy, 1,092 on Psych wikia. ) *I can be trusted not to abuse sysop powers or use it as a symbol of authority to advance positions I advocate. Everyone has an equal say and I strongly support that. I also do have not problem carrying out and enforcing practices collectively agreed upon regardless whether I happen to agree or disagree with them. I am familiar with wiki practice and highly supportive of its collaborative philosophy and culture. For example, the category naming discussions on Commons were particularly heated due to some nationalist issues, but I was able to handle them in an even handed manner guide the discussion towards concensus positions with both sides feeling their POVs were for the most part being accomodated. *I am familiar with wikimedia engine inner workings and have set up and operated my own site using it. *I am an advanced template writer, and can fix the most esoteric of templates on this site. *Have written complex genealogy Python programs for conducting Bot operations *Participate in helping other wikia with technical issues. Sorry to be longwinded- just wanted to fully describe my reasons and qualifications. Thanks for taking time to consider this application. I will work hard for the betterment of this site. :::[[User:Phlox|~'' Phlox]] 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Supporting # Support Excellent work. --Richard Arthur Norton I 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) # Support Has done a lot and has been very helpful on the Wikia. -AMK152(Talk • 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC) # Support Chadlupkes 03:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC) #Support. Persuasive essay above. Valuable contributor. Robin Patterson 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Neutral *I really don't think I do enough here to have a say. I would say whatever Robin wants. Will 02:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Opposing Done No opposition or dissension apparent; "nem con" is the trad abbrev! Robin Patterson 08:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC) ---- AMK152 AMK152 has made significant contributions to the site and has a flair for UI improvements. A lot of these UI features can only be controlled with access to the mediawiki namespace, but unfortunately only admins can edit these pages. Besides the need for admins due to a projected spike in contributors, I am nominating AMK for sysop so he can join Robin and I in the drudgery of sysop dutes. Misery loves company and all that. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC) :I accept nomination. -AMK152(Talk • 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Supporting # Support Excellent work on person infobox, has good skills at diplomacy, can quickly grasp esoteric subjects. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 23:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Neutral or wanting more info Opposing Done How did we overlook that? Robin Patterson 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ---- Briantice *I would like to serve. I have only been on here a few days, but have posted a few hundred articles, i.e.: :*Benjamin Dudley Pritchard (American Civil War hero) :*Francis Adam Goodman (1827-1898) :*Category:Grafschaft-Bentheim and have added to a few existing articles and discussions. I have also made several article submissions to wikipedia, i.e. :*Wikipedia:Singapore, Michigan :*Wikipedia:Del Langejans :*Wikipedia:David Otis Fuller --Briantice 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Supporters Robin Patterson 01:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC) :And he's done more - continuing the quality - since 17 July, so maybe it's time! Robin Patterson 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Neutral * I don't know the user much, but as a general principle, I would like folks to be around for a little while, so their involvement--and the community's knowledge of them--evolves.IFaqeer 02:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Opposed ---- (User:Thurstan) Remarkably energetic contributor (now listed at number 6, which is pretty good for someone who has been here barely a year). Full of good ideas, and sometimes in a position where admin powers would save him and others some time. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' Thurstan 03:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Supporting — Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC) - Richard Tol 13:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC) -AMK152(talk • ) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Neutral - Opposing - Done Three supporters, no other comment. Two weeks of display on the sitenotice is enough notification. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ---- Nomination for Adminship: Rtol I nominate (User:Rtol) for admin rights. It will be easier to work for him if he should be an admin sysop. Currently he is the most active genealogy and site-improving contributor.--Fred Bergman 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) *'Questions': Has Rtol accepted this nomination? It's a requirement on Wikipedia's RfA (see here) for nominees to first accept their nomination and I think it makes sense Wiki-wide. For instance, I know some people who don't want to be entrusted with the responsibility. Also, does Rtol really feel his/her work would be "easier" with admin tools? If so, why? —DeGraffJE'' talk 11:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' Supporting *Fred Bergman 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) '''If we want a good working and attractive dutch community to this site, it will be necessary to have a dutch admin and in my opinion no one is better for that purpose than Richard Tol. It is not his ambition to be important but it is a fact that he is important for this site and for the grow of a dutch community at this site !'-- Fred Bergman 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC) *— Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Neutral * If he actually wants to be an admin, I would change to support. William Allen Shade 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC) * I never walk away from responsibility, but I do not really have the time. The only advantage of adminship is that I could delete the pages I create by accident. rtol 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Opposing *(changed vote from support) DeGraffJE's point has merit. Although our process today more resembles that of WP when it first started, it is reasonable to expect a statement of acceptance of nomination, and a statement covering the items DeGraffJE enumerated. I remain positive about Rtol's contributions here but should not assume what justification Rtol has in mind or if he even desires this responsibility and accepts the constraints that go along with it. 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC) *:My oppose is firmed up given Rtol's neutrality. Only those who actively want to be (and desire continuing to be) an admin, should be an admin. By extension, the same goes for all positions. We should probably retire IFaqueer and WWillis's status unless they intend to take an active part in bureaucrat duties. They can always be reinstated when they want to resume work here. 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ::*I agree with you comments regarding inactive bureaucrats; however, removing those rights from IF and WW would only leave one remaining (Robin). There should probably always be at least two. If you're up to the task, I suggest you propose to be a bureaucrat...you're qualified and active. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) ---- Nomination for Bureaucrat: Phlox Has been with us for a long time and could be a suitable second active bureaucrat. (The others mentioned above are still contactable despite being inactive.) — Robin Patterson (Talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' I will accept if people agree to continue to engage in spirited debates with me. Bureaucrats are supposed to be deferential to the community, but so often contributors think of it the other way around. I need to be able to continue to make technical proposals that are at times pushing the envelope, and I need folks to be free in their criticisms/ objections. If the community has trust in my tolerance, integrity and ability to be impartial and carry out the will of the community, then I welcome this responsibility. In reality though, since the number of bureaucrat actions are low in frequency, I expect that this will result in no real difference and that Robin will continue to carry out most if not all bureaucrat functions as before. I am ready to fill in when Robin goes on walkabout or when there is a substantial reduction in the workload related to the Semantic Media Wiki upgrades. 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Supporting *'Support''' (pending nominee's acceptance). Trustworthy, knowledgeable, and active. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) * Sounds good to me. - William Allen Shade 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) *Excellent idea. Thurstan 04:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) *Very strong support ! -- Fred Bergman 05:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) *rtol 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) *'Strong Support' -AMK152(talk • ) 04:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Neutral None Opposing None Done Apology for delay; I've been having problems with computing and other things, and I couldn't find how to do this until today (because the special page form has changed since I last did one). — Robin Patterson (Talk) 11:59, September 20, 2009 (UTC) ---- Request_for_Adminship:_DeGraffJE The following are couple reasons why I request your consideration for adminship: # Wiki-knowledeable. I'm a top 30 editor here (with more edits than two current admins), am an Experienced & Established Editor on the English Wikipedia, and know how to use sysop tools, having served as an admin on two private wikis. I have spearheaded archival methods here and am knowledgeable with templates and intricate wiki syntax. # Apt to serve. I will help keep the wiki clutter-free and BLP-sound by assuaging issues on CfD (which has grown from 40 to almost 100 issues over the past couple months), by addressing issues on Forum:Administrators' noticeboard, and by helping to edit the wiki interface when consensus dictates. I will also use the rollback privileges to help counter vandalism and to restore material removed through improper edits. I believe my edits thus far attest to my abilities and demeanor, and I feel that access to the admin tools will enable me to improve the 'pedia and aid other editors beyond work concerning articles of personal interest. Thank you for your consideration. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Questions: *You cite your status as an experienced and established WP editor but I did not see a link to your WP:User page. Would that be possible? ::Sure...see here. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *You state your interest in Living People articles. Some genealogy sites only allow superficial information for individuals born during the last 100 years. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Using this concrete example, how do you think Familypedia's practice should diverge from Wikipedia's policies on living people? In general, do you think Familypedia should take a hard line or adopt no fixed policy and deal with it on a case by case basis? :*Say User:I'm the real Richard Norton shows up and demands that all the information in the article be taken down. How do we really know our Richard is the real Richard? :::Whether or not it is the real Richard is a moot point, although I would work conscientiously and sympathetically to address his concerns, as BLP issues can be serious. Per Wikia policy and Wikipedia precedent, I would evaluate whether or not the information in the article is supported by high-quality references and written conservatively with regard for the subject's privacy, and then I would make a decision. Controversial material would also be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :*User:Billy Bob Norton gives information on himself but Richard doubts the user is the real Billy Bob related to Richard. Richard recuses himself from blocking Billy Bob due to his personal connection to the controversy. Do we go with people we trust? Richard has a long history here as well as at WP, so maybe this case is a simple call. But what if the contributors each have only a few hundred edits? How do we know who to trust? Do we take a vote, or err on the side of caution and expunge information for any article on a living person over which there is any objection? :::Issues like this need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not be haphazardly decided per edit counts (even experienced editors make mistakes and have lapses in judgment) or just because the issue concerns a living person. The burden of proof rests with the person who adds or restores material; an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all content policies and guidelines. No vote is needed, but the admin should conduct an investigation and make an informed, methodical decision. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC) *Oftentimes there is no consensus between competing points of view on ancestors for which there is little hard evidence. Say 3RR is violated and an article or series of articles gets locked. After 2 weeks there is no consensus (indeed some of these disputes have gone on for hundreds of years). What action does the admin take? Perpetual lock? Relax definition of consensus (eg:Act based on simple majority vote)? ::After the two-week cooling off period, I would probably unlock the article and offer some coaching on the talk page. I would encourage those involved to discuss things on the talk page before making controversial edits and to seek reliable sources, with the caveat that some records were either recorded incorrectly or the ancestor lied (e.g., ancestor lied about age, name, or country of origin in order to remain in a country, enlist in the military, etc.). I would explain that multiple hypotheses can coexist on an article in cases where consensus cannot be established. After coaching, further article or editor blocks may be required. As a holistic remedy, I might also refer the editors to Mediation. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) :Thank you for these great questions. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Consent: '' Supporting *Short but promising history on this wiki. rtol 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) **DeGraffJE kept her cool after being attacked over a change in punctuation. rtol 05:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :::I had a discussion with Phlox, concerning my opposition against the request of DeGraffJE for Adminship. That discussion made me aware of the fact that there are Wikipediarules, which also have to be followed at Familypedia. According that I acted the wrong way. For that reason I apologise to DeGraffJE and, I nominate him again for the Adminship, because he was so polite to withdrew based on my incorrect behaviour and then I will be so correct to repair the situation.-- Fred Bergman 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)' Neutral * I personally will support whatever Robin's opinion is on this one. - William Allen Shade 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Opposing We could be close to a decision here Almost deserves approval just because of record-length candidate statement and competency of supplementary answers! But "The TinyURL (kualop) you visited was used by its creator in violation of our terms of use. " And I see a gender discrepancy that would be better resolved. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:11, September 20, 2009 (UTC) :I am male, but I hope that doesn't affect my candidacy. :) Also, the error experienced with tinyURL is because it was posted over a month ago and I set it to expire shortly thereafter. You can view the link in question again here. Thanks. —''DeGraffJE'' talk 23:35, September 25, 2009 (UTC) Done No further questions. Impressive WP pages. Welcome to the team! — Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:42, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :The above discussions are preserved as an archive. '''Please do not edit this content.' Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.